FTFA: "Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Since that's precisely what science means, then yeah. You are eliminating that.

Never a better use of the 'Obvious' tag. Creationism is NOTscience (no matter how desperately they try to package it as such). Therefore it's a no-brainer that it should NOT be taught in science classes.If your school has an elective theology course, then sure...go nuts with the creationism in that class.

unyon:FTFA: "Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Since that's precisely what science means, then yeah. You are eliminating that.

"Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

"Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

This is what happens when a republican tries to ask a 'gotcha' question.

unyon:FTFA: "Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Since that's precisely what science means, then yeah. You are eliminating that.

Apparently it's too much to just take your damn kids to church if you want to indoctrinate them.

"Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Arkanaut:unyon: FTFA: "Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Since that's precisely what science means, then yeah. You are eliminating that.

Apparently it's too much to just take your damn kids to church if you want to indoctrinate them.

Or sending them to a private school. The Catholics have been doing it since forever, why in the hell won't these asshats?

The intelligent design people should have tried adjusting their argument to fit specific circumstances, and only keeping pieces of rhetoric that actually provided a positive benefit to the whole concept.

"Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

wat

"Since we don't have facts, can we teach bronze-age mythology in our science classes?"

Mega Steve:Back when I was in high school, we spent most of our lunch periods in the library. One day, my friend Bill notices the Bible was in the mythology section.

When I was in school there was no mythology section, only fiction and nonfiction. I don't recall too many people getting their hackles raised by the bible being in the fiction section, but people were smart enough to keep religion out of politics back then.

*Eliminate*? Someone's as bad at their recent history as they are science.

Public schools *didn't* teach creation - as it was the prevailing interpretation of the 'separation of church and state' that they *couldn't* teach specific theological beliefs.

Then you-all nutters tried to *force it* into the curriculum.

So, *no*. No-one's trying to "eliminate" the teaching of specific theological beliefs in public schools.We're trying to *prevent it in the first damn place* -- to uphold a long-settled interpretation of the Establishment Clause, to not privilege any one set of religious beliefs over the others -- you intellectually dishonest slimebag.

Unless, of course, you want to see biblical creation 'taught' on equal footing as the wheel of life, the creation of the black-headed people, the rending of the flesh of Ymir to forge the world, and all the rest.

FirstNationalBastard:I would have no problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. Hell, I'd even agree to the bible being required reading...

...in english class, where they teach all the other fantasy novels and fantastic, implausible ideas.

went to HS in the late 80s (Public School) The Bible was used in my sophomore english class. If I remember correctly we were doing a comparative religious or creation myth segment. I don't recall anyone getting upset about having their beliefs challenged. It was examined as literature and not a dogmatic book etc.

I wish Kansas would do the same thing, but thanks to the Tea Party movement, a bunch of nutjobs got in and I imagine the kids are watching Kirk Cameron banana videos. They view the Governor, Sam Brownback, as too moderate, and that guy is a creationist moron.

unyon:FTFA: "Because we do not have the scientific facts to teach creation, does that mean we can't teach that God created women and men," asked Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels). "Are we trying to eliminate that?"

Since that's precisely what science means, then yeah. You are eliminating that.

kindms:FirstNationalBastard: I would have no problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. Hell, I'd even agree to the bible being required reading...

...in english class, where they teach all the other fantasy novels and fantastic, implausible ideas.

went to HS in the late 80s (Public School) The Bible was used in my sophomore english class. If I remember correctly we were doing a comparative religious or creation myth segment. I don't recall anyone getting upset about having their beliefs challenged. It was examined as literature and not a dogmatic book etc.

Yes, but that was the 80s, before these people really started trying to force Public Schools to become Sunday Schools.

shastacola:Has the question of who Cain and Abel married ever been answered?

"Just because Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel (and later, Seth) were the only people mentioned, doesn't mean they were the only people. Maybe those 4/5 were the only ones worth mentioning, and the facts of early man gettin' down are assumed to have involved women other than Mama Eve (which doesn't really add to the story). The genealogical exposition in Genesis establishes the patrilineal line, so none of the women are mentioned.

// the same way we don't know much about Biblical women in general - like who married Reuben, for example

Dr Dreidel:shastacola: Has the question of who Cain and Abel married ever been answered?

"Just because Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel (and later, Seth) were the only people mentioned, doesn't mean they were the only people. Maybe those 4/5 were the only ones worth mentioning, and the facts of early man gettin' down are assumed to have involved women other than Mama Eve (which doesn't really add to the story). The genealogical exposition in Genesis establishes the patrilineal line, so none of the women are mentioned.

// the same way we don't know much about Biblical women in general - like who married Reuben, for example

FirstNationalBastard:kindms: FirstNationalBastard: I would have no problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. Hell, I'd even agree to the bible being required reading...

...in english class, where they teach all the other fantasy novels and fantastic, implausible ideas.

went to HS in the late 80s (Public School) The Bible was used in my sophomore english class. If I remember correctly we were doing a comparative religious or creation myth segment. I don't recall anyone getting upset about having their beliefs challenged. It was examined as literature and not a dogmatic book etc.

Yes, but that was the 80s, before these people really started trying to force Public Schools to become Sunday Schools.

Well that isn't entirely true. There was always the folks who didn't think X,Y or Z should be taught, The fight in those days seemed to come down on the sex ed / health classes etc.

But the thing is this. Those kids in my class etc are the folks in their late 30s early 40s. The same folks who would primarily have kids going through schools now. So who is really pushing this agenda ? I supposed a bunch of kids from the late 80s early 90s could all of a sudden forget what it was like to go to public school and become god crazy.